Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32(06): 445-454
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1571197
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Early Years of Practice: An Assessment of Operative Efficiency and Cost of Free Flap and Implant Breast Reconstruction at an Academic Institution

Ian C. Sando
1   Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Adeyiza O. Momoh
1   Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Kevin C. Chung
1   Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Jeffrey H. Kozlow
1   Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 July 2015

15 November 2015

Publication Date:
12 February 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term costs, and financial implications of improvements in operative efficiency of free flap and implant-based breast reconstruction within an academic practice.

Methods The billing records of 162 patients who underwent postmastectomy implant-based or free flap breast reconstruction by two newly hired microsurgeons at an academic institution during the 2011, 2012, and 2013 fiscal years were reviewed. Actual data on professional revenue, relative value units (RVUs), and facility costs for the first stage of reconstruction as well as costs of postoperative complications were assessed.

Results Free flaps consistently generated more revenue and RVUs than implants (p < 0.001). Rates of major complications and associated costs were greater for free flaps during the first 2 years of practice; however, by the 3rd year rates were similar between free flaps and implants (14.3 vs. 18.2%, p = 0.72). There was a 26% reduction in free flap operative time in 2013 as compared with 2011. Operative efficiency (hourly RVU) of first stage procedures increased each year for both modalities. At the completion of reconstruction, flaps and implants had comparable hourly reimbursement ($1,053 vs. $947, p = 0.72) and hourly RVU (22 vs. 29, p = 0.06).

Conclusions Contrary to perceptions that free flap breast reconstructions are financially inefficient for the surgeon, we have found that these complex reconstructive procedures are profitable. Even in the early years of practice, hourly reimbursements from completed flap reconstructions are similar to reimbursements received from similar staged implant reconstructions.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - free flap reconstruction - efficiency
 

  • References

  • 1 Sisco M, Du H, Warner JP, Howard MA, Winchester DP, Yao K. Have we expanded the equitable delivery of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the new millennium? Evidence from the national cancer data base. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 215 (5) 658-666 , discussion 666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (1) 15-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cagli B, Segreto F, Santoro S, Iannuzzi R, Signoretti M, Persichetti P. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (4) 674e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yang RL, Newman AS, Lin IC , et al. Trends in immediate breast reconstruction across insurance groups after enactment of breast cancer legislation. Cancer 2013; 119 (13) 2462-2468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Agarwal S, Kidwell KM, Kraft CT , et al. Defining the relationship between patient decisions to undergo breast reconstruction and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (3) 661-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, Kuhn LE, Davis J, Wilkins EG. Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. Ann Surg 2008; 247 (6) 1019-1028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Guyomard V, Leinster S, Wilkinson M. Systematic review of studies of patients' satisfaction with breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast 2007; 16 (6) 547-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S , et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer 2012; 118 (6) 1701-1709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Lowery JC, Wilkins EG. Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204 (1) 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hu ES, Pusic AL, Waljee JF , et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship Period. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (1) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T , et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (6) 1585-1595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Alderman AK, Atisha D, Streu R , et al. Patterns and correlates of postmastectomy breast reconstruction by U.S. Plastic surgeons: results from a national survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (5) 1796-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Alderman AK, Storey AF, Nair NS, Chung KC. Financial impact of breast reconstruction on an academic surgical practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (5) 1408-1413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Krieger LM, Lee GK. The economics of plastic surgery practices: trends in income, procedure mix, and volume. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (1) 192-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Patel A, Clune JE, Forte A, Chang CC. The impact of the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula on reconstructive plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (5) 270e-271e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wilkins EG, Alderman AK. Breast reconstruction practices in north america: current trends and future priorities. Semin Plast Surg 2004; 18 (2) 149-155
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Slavin SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69 (5) 516-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fischer JP, Nelson JA, Cleveland E , et al. Breast reconstruction modality outcome study: a comparison of expander/implants and free flaps in select patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (5) 928-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fischer JP, Sieber B, Nelson JA , et al. Comprehensive outcome and cost analysis of free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction: an experience with 1303 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (2) 195-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fischer JP, Wes AM, Nelson JA , et al. Propensity-matched, longitudinal outcomes analysis of complications and cost: comparing abdominal free flaps and implant-based breast reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 219 (2) 303-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kaplan JL, Allen RJ. Cost-based comparison between perforator flaps and TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105 (3) 943-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kroll SS, Evans GR, Reece GP , et al. Comparison of resource costs of free and conventional TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98 (1) 74-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Preminger BA, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, Verma N, Worku A, Cordeiro PG. How should quality-of-life data be incorporated into a cost analysis of breast reconstruction? A consideration of implant versus free TRAM flap procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (4) 1075-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sando IC, Chung KC, Kidwell KM, Kozlow JH, Malay S, Momoh AO. Comprehensive breast reconstruction in an academic surgical practice: an evaluation of the financial impact. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (6) 1131-1139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Serletti JM, Moran SL. Free versus the pedicled TRAM flap: a cost comparison and outcome analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (6) 1418-1424 , discussion 1425–1427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Spear SL, Mardini S, Ganz JC. Resource cost comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction versus TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112 (1) 101-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Thoma A, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Veltri K. Cost-utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 2003; 23 (4) 287-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Duku E. Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (6) 1650-1661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bank J, Phillips NA, Park JE, Song DH. Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37 (6) 1194-1201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chang EI, Chang EI, Soto-Miranda MA , et al. Comprehensive analysis of donor-site morbidity in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (6) 1383-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Acosta R, Smit JM, Audolfsson T , et al. A clinical review of 9 years of free perforator flap breast reconstructions: an analysis of 675 flaps and the influence of new techniques on clinical practice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2011; 27 (2) 91-98
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Chen JTIJ, Israel JS, Poore SO, Rao VK. The Affordable Care Act: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (5) 830e-837e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 United States Congress House. Office of the Legislative Counsel, United States Congress House; Committee on Ways and Means, United States Congress House, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States Congress House, Committee on Education and Labor. Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: as amended through November 1, 2010 including Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act health-related portions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Cemal Y, Albornoz CR, Disa JJ , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: Part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (3) 320e-326e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Fine NA, Kim JS. Discussion: breast reconstruction modality outcome study: a comparison of expander/implants and free flaps in select patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (5) 935-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Damen TH, Wei W, Mureau MA , et al. Medium-term cost analysis of breast reconstructions in a single Dutch centre: a comparison of implants, implants preceded by tissue expansion, LD transpositions and DIEP flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64 (8) 1043-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Healy C, Allen Sr RJ. The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (2) 121-125
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar